John Calvin Versus Norman Shepherd On Sola Fide

By Samuel E. Waldron

Samuel E. Waldron, Ph.D., is a pastor of Heritage Baptist Church, Owensboro, KY, and a professor in the Midwest Center for Theological Studies.

Evangelicals seem destined to re-think the issue of justification by faith alone. This will not be a bad thing if it serves to re-acquaint us with the powerful gospel preached by our Protestant forefathers. Ideas regarding the doctrine of justification that originated in “the new perspective on Paul” movement are invading Evangelicalism through a number of increasingly well-known writers and many evangelicals are proving receptive to these ideas. Some (such as Don Garlington, who studied under James D.G. Dunn and is profoundly influenced by his views) have derived “new perspective”-like views of justification directly from “new perspective” sources. Others, however, who have adopted views of justification that parallel “new perspective” ideas in important respects, do not seem to owe them specifically to “new perspective” influences. Such is the case, for example, with Daniel Fuller.[1] In the same category is Norman Shepherd, whose views will be weighed in this essay. The controversy over Shepherd’s views at Westminster Theological Seminary was well under way before the publication of E.P. Sanders’ famous Paul and Palestinian Judaism and concerned ideas that Shepherd had taught in his classes for a number of years.[2]

Shepherd’s Present Significance

Shepherd was dismissed from Westminster in 1982 because of the controversy over his views of justification. At that time sharp division developed within Presbyterian circles over his ideas. This division seems to have been a major factor in the failure of the PCA to approve merger with the OPC.[3]

Still, someone may well ask, What relevance can Shepherd have today? The fact is that his views of justification are enormously relevant today. The reason is, first, that after his retirement in 1998, Shepherd has revisited the subject of justification in two publications. The Call of Grace: How the Covenant Illuminates Salvation and Evangelism was published in 2000 by P&R Publishing. “Justification by Faith Alone” was published in the Reformation and Revival Journal in the Spring of 2002. The same issue featured articles by Don Garlington, Daniel Fuller, and an interview with N.T. Wright. These publications will be the focus of this essay, especially Shepherd’s article, “Justification by Faith Alone.” Second, Shepherd’s views have had considerable influence in what is now known as the Auburn Avenue Theology. Several popular, conservative, Presbyterian teachers and writers have to one degree or another identified themselves with this theology and show Shepherd’s influence.[4] It seems unlikely that this influence stems only from his recent publications but is likely also related to influences flowing from the celebrity of his cause and positions in the Westminster controversy.

Thesis

John Calvin taught that, central to justification, sola fide maintains a crucial distinction between justifying faith and evangelical obedience. He embodied this distinction pervasively and variously in the way he structured his doctrine of the application of redemption or applied soteriology. Shepherd distinguishes the Reformed and Lutheran traditions with regard to justification sola fide and appeals to the Westminster Confession in support of his views. Shepherd’s views bring him into direct and substantial conflict with the distinction between justifying faith and evangelical obedience and, thus, the embodiment of justification sola fide in Calvin’s applied soteriology. This suggests that Shepherd does not hold to justification sola fide in the classic, Protestant sense.

Norman Shepherd

In “Justification by Faith Alone,” Shepherd endorses justification by faith alone, yet in a highly qualified way. Just how qualified is clear from the following statements. Among Shepherd’s revealing and surprising assertions are:

• [The expression] “justification by faith alone” is commonly used among us. The interesting thing is that the Westminster Standards do not use that formula. 
• When the Catechisms say that imputed righteousness is received by faith alone they are describing the instrumental function of faith. They do not use the formula, “justified by faith alone.”
• ... there is also a difference between the classic Lutheran and Reformed doctrines of justification.
• By not using the formula, justification by faith alone, the Westminster Standards avoid a serious misunderstanding of the gospel. Either we suppress this emphasis in our preaching and teaching altogether, or we resort to the idea that repentance and obedience automatically follow upon justification as evidence of salvation that is granted by faith alone apart from repentance and obedience. Recourse to this idea is a dogmatic necessary [sic] but textually unwarranted.
• Luther inserted the word “alone” into his translation of Romans 3:28. .. . this is the origin of the dogmatic formula, justification by faith alone. However, his insertion actually distorts Paul’s meaning.
• We can use the formula, “justification by faith alone,”. .. . Use of that particular formula, however, cannot be made a litmus test for orthodoxy. If it were both Scripture and the Westminster Confession would fail the test.
• We can use the formula, “justification by faith alone,” as long as we understand and avoid the ambiguities and liabilities involved in it.[5]

At the end of the day, Shepherd is willing to use the formula justified by faith alone, but only after much struggle, explanation, and qualification. The last paragraph of “Justification by Faith Alone” contains this sentence: “We are justified and saved only by faith in Jesus Christ, his blood and righteousness.”[6] Thus, Shepherd affirms justification by faith alone in what he thinks is its confessional sense. He appeals repeatedly to the Westminster Confession and distinguishes its teaching from the Lutheran doctrine. Though differences, of course, developed between the Lutheran and Reformed in a number of matters, I question whether any substantial distinction specifically with regard to justification sola fide can be maintained between the Lutheran and Reformed confessions or between Luther and Calvin. The major question here, however, is whether Shepherd is right in thinking he holds justification sola fide in the Reformed and confessional sense.

Let me point out a number of positions taken by Shepherd that are distinctive of his views and that I will later compare to those of Calvin.

1. Faith not to be isolated from obedience

In The Call of Grace, Shepherd loudly denounces isolating the call to faith from the call to obedience.

When the call to faith is isolated from the call to obedience, as it frequently is, the effect is to make good works a supplement to salvation or simply the evidence of salvation. Some would even make them an optional supplement.[7]

A good construction may be put on Shepherd’s complaint. The problem, however, is that his complaint is ambiguous with regard to a key distinction regarding sola fide held by both Calvin and the Reformation more generally. Protestantism with one voice argued that, while justifying faith and evangelical obedience are distinguishable, they are nevertheless inseparable. This is the whole point of the statement of the Westminster Confession that “faith. .. the alone instrument of justification is never alone.” The question is whether Shepherd is rejecting the idea that faith and obedience are distinguishable or the idea that they are inseparable. Does the idea of isolation imply distinction or separation? Shepherd’s ambiguity here is inexcusable, if he wishes to make clear his meaning within either the Protestant or Reformed tradition. The dangerous trend revealed in Shepherd’s ambiguity becomes even more visible as he rejects the isolation of faith from regeneration, repentance, and good works.

2. Faith not to be isolated from regeneration

Shepherd argues that in the Westminster Confession regeneration is the inception of sanctification. Since regeneration is also the source of faith, this situates saving faith firmly within the orbit of sanctification. This view, he thinks, distinguishes the Reformed from the Lutheran view that sanctification follows upon justification. Here are his remarks:

Regeneration is the link between calling and sanctification.. . Chapter 13 says that “They, who are once effectually called, and regenerated. .. are further sanctified,” as already noted. 

It is after chapter 13 on sanctification that the Confession goes on to deal with saving faith, repentance, and good works in chapters 14, 15, and 16. The point is, of course, that saving faith does not precede the new birth, but follows upon regeneration. Regeneration initiates the process of sanctification, and saving faith, or justifying faith, emerges in the believer in the process of sanctification. This process brings to life not only faith but repentance and obedience. Just this priority of regeneration to faith explains why faith can never be alone. .. . 

Faith is logically prior to justification. We believe with a view to being justified. Because regeneration is prior to faith and is the initiation of sanctification. We have to say that the process of sanctification is prior to justification. This does not mean that justification is sanctification, or that sanctification is the ground of justification. This was the erroneous teaching of the Council of Trent. Justification is forensic, not transformative. But it does mean that the Reformed view differs from the Lutheran view that sanctification in every respect follows upon justification.[8]

A number of statements in this quotation exhibit profound confusion. Shepherd’s assertions about the implications and meaning of the Confession are in several respects suspect.

Shepherd deduces from the order of the chapters of the Confession that sanctification precedes saving faith. This is simply wrong. If he were right, we would also have to conclude that justification precedes saving faith, a position the Confession explicitly rejects. The Confession rather deals topically in chapters 10–18. In chapters 10–13 the divine activities of effectual calling, justification, adoption, and sanctification are treated. In chapters 14–18 the human activities (graces) of saving faith, repentance, good works, perseverance, and assurance are treated. Within these two sub-divisions there is, of course, logical order and this is where Shepherd’s weakness is exposed. The order of the Confession actually suggests (when properly understood) that justification precedes sanctification and that faith precedes repentance and good works. The order of the Confession suggests, in other words, the very view that Shepherd rejects.

Shepherd assumes that in the Confession regeneration precedes faith. Actually, this is not clear. The Confession utilizes the category of effectual calling to assert the divine and monergistic origin of faith. The chapter on effectual calling speaks of our being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit so that we embrace the grace offered (10:2), but does not explicitly call this regeneration.

Shepherd urges that faith emerges within “the process of sanctification.” This is an astonishing overstatement. Even if one grants that regeneration is to be understood as the inception of sanctification and the origin of faith, this does not mean that faith emerges within the process of sanctification. At most, it means that faith originates with the inception of sanctification. Actually, here we come to a consideration that establishes the previous points I have been making about Shepherd’s mis-reading of the Confession. In reality, the Confession teaches that faith precedes sanctification. The words of 14:2 are explicit: “the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life.”[9] If sanctification is by means of faith, even its inception cannot logically precede faith. The process of sanctification certainly cannot precede saving faith.

More troubling and important than these problems with his reading of the Confession is the way in which Shepherd embeds faith in the process of sanctification. This has the direct tendency to subsume faith under the category of sanctification and to erase any distinction between justifying faith and moral renewal. As we will see, this brings Shepherd into head-on collision with Calvin.

3. Faith not to be isolated from repentance

Shepherd observes:

Faith and repentance are inseparable twins. As John Murray correctly observes, it is impossible to disentangle faith and repentance. Repentance is not the same thing as faith.[10]

In itself this statement is unobjectionable. The assertion that faith and repentance are inseparable, but distinct, exhibits a carefully balanced and important expression of the teaching of Scripture. Trouble arises, however, on two fronts for Shepherd’s teaching on the relation of faith and repentance.

The first front on which Shepherd runs into trouble is his equating repentance with (or including in repentance) new obedience. Here are his statements:

Repentance, as defined in chapter 15, is not only a sorrow for and hatred of sin, but also a turning from sin with a purpose and endeavor to walk with the Lord in all the ways of his commandments.[11] 

Repentance as defined by the Confession in chapter 15 includes not only a sorrow for sin, but also a turning away from sin. Justification means that God forgives sinners; but he does not forgive impenitent sinners. He forgives penitent sinners, sinners who turn away from their sin and who in faith cry out for mercy.[12] 

The New Testament, as well as the Old, clearly teaches that repentance entails more that (sic) just sorrow for sin. Repentance includes turning away from sin and making a new beginning.. .. You cannot turn to Christ in faith without turning away from what is opposed to Christ in repentance. 

... faith produces repentance, and repentance is evident in the lifestyle of the believer. Thus, the obligations of the new covenant include not only faith and repentance, but also obedience.[13]

The second front on which Shepherd’s doctrine of repentance runs into trouble is that he equates repentance, so defined, with faith as necessary for the forgiveness of sins or justification, i.e., as a condition of justification.

This means that without repentance the sinner will not be pardoned. Repentance is like faith. It is neither the cause nor the ground of pardon. Yet it is absolutely necessary for the forgiveness of sins. Repentance is presented in the Confession not simply as the fruit and evidence of pardon, but also as necessary for the remission of sin.. . . 

Now justification either is or includes the forgiveness of sins. Chapter 11, section 1, says that God justifies sinners by pardoning their sins. If justification includes forgiveness, and if repentance is necessary for forgiveness, then repentance is necessary for justification.[14]

Combining these assertions, we are led directly to the conclusion that repentance in the sense of new obedience is necessary unto justification. That is to say, evangelical good works become a condition of justification. Again, as we will see, Shepherd here pointedly collides with Calvin, but Shepherd has also blurred the distinction instituted by the Westminster Confession between faith and repentance with regard to the instrumental cause of justification.

He says, “Repentance is like faith. It is neither the cause nor the ground of pardon.” This, however, misses an important distinction made by the Westminster Confession and the Protestant tradition. Faith is not like repentance. Faith is, in an important sense, the cause of justification — its instrumental cause. When the Westminster Confession calls faith “the alone instrument of justification” (11.2), this statement means that faith is the instrumental cause of justification. This reflects a long tradition beginning with Calvin that designated faith as the instrumental cause of justification.[15] Thus, when in 15.3 the Westminster Confession denies that repentance is “any cause of the pardon thereof,” it is denying that repentance has the place of faith in justification. Faith is the instrumental cause of justification. Repentance is not.

4. Faith not to be isolated from works

It is no surprise, then, that Shepherd is willing to assert that a kind of works is necessary unto (or a condition of) being justified.

Eternal life is promised as an undeserved gift from the Lord. He forgives our sins and receives us as righteous because of Jesus Christ and his redemptive accomplishments on our behalf. At the same time, faith, repentance, obedience, and perseverance are indispensable to the enjoyment of these blessings. They are conditions, but they are not meritorious. Faith is required, but faith looks away from personal merit to the promises of God. Repentance and obedience flow from faith as the fullness of faith. This is faithfulness, and faithfulness is perseverance in faith. A living, active, and abiding faith is the way in which the believer enters into eternal life.[16]

The assertion that we are justified by believing works is made repeatedly in connection with James 2. Shepherd, in fact, cites James 2 immediately after this quotation.[17] Elsewhere in The Call of Grace, he says:

James 2 is even more explicit. Verse 21 says that Abraham was considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar. His faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did… James goes on to say that faith without deeds is dead. For that reason, he can also say in verse 24 that “a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.” The faith credited to Abraham as righteousness was a living and active faith.[18]

Assumed in such references to James 2 is Shepherd’s conviction that James is using “justify” in the same sense as Paul.[19] This, of course, seems to create conflict between James and Paul. Shepherd resolves this conflict by arguing that not all works, but only a certain kind of works are opposed to faith.[20] In both The Call of Grace and “Justification by Faith Alone,” Shepherd makes a distinction between works of merit and works of faith. In The Call of Grace we read:

But on a deeper level, what must be challenged in the Roman Catholic doctrine is the very idea of merit itself. God does not, and never did, relate to his people on the basis of a works/merit principle. The biblical texts to which Rome appeals must be read in light of the covenant. Then the biblical demands for repentance and obedience, together with the warnings against disobedience, can be seen for what they are. They are not an invitation to achieve salvation by human merit. They are a call to find salvation wholly and exclusively in Jesus Christ through faith in him.[21]

The conclusion is inevitable that, though we are not justified by works of merit, we are justified by works of faith. Thus, when Shepherd affirms justification by faith alone, he means justification by works of faith alone and not by works of merit. I shall now argue, however, that this is emphatically not what Calvin understood justification sola fide to mean.

John Calvin

In this division of our study, I will first present the structure of Calvin’s applied soteriology and then apply it to Shepherd’s distinctive views.

The Structure of Calvin’s Applied Soteriology

The general overview

One may reconstruct from the early chapters of Book Three of the Institutes a structure in terms of which Calvin presents his view of the application of salvation. One may almost say that Calvin there provides his ordo salutis! In terms of this structure Calvin provides a perspective on a number of important, theological issues — including the one addressed in this essay.

Calvin teaches that the application of salvation is as follows. The Holy Spirit creates faith in Christ. This is His principal work.[22] In this way the Spirit and faith unite the believer to Christ and to all the benefits of redemption found in Him.[23] The two great benefits of salvation found in Christ are forgiveness of sins and moral renewal (justification and sanctification).[24] Calvin variously terms moral renewal as repentance, regeneration, and sanctification.[25] He divides sanctification into mortification and vivification.[26] Justification is the other great blessing possessed in union with Christ.[27] Though it is treated second in order, it is “the main hinge on which religion turns.”[28] Justification itself has two sides or aspects. It is both forgiveness of sins and a gracious acceptance of our persons by God.[29] Repentance (also called regeneration or sanctification) has to do with moral renewal, while justification is forensic and has to do with our status or standing before God.[30] To paraphrase an old proverb, one diagram may be worth more than an extended exposition (note Figure 1).

The crucial distinction

This diagram of Calvin’s structuring of the application of redemption shows clearly the important distinction that he made between faith, on the one hand, and what he variously called repentance, regeneration, and sanctification, on the other hand. Faith is unto union with Christ. Repentance, etc. is a consequence of union with Christ. Although this is not a chronological distinction, since faith, union with Christ, and repentance are inseparable, it is an important logical and sequential distinction. The work of the Holy Spirit in creating faith in Christ, on the one hand, and in morally renewing (giving repentance to) the believer are distinguished. Though the moral renewal (repentance) of the believer is the work of the Holy Spirit, “faith is the principal work of the Spirit.”[31]

It is not difficult to collect statements from this part of the Institutes to support this distinction. The statement of 3:3:1 is both clear and exemplary. Chapter Three is entitled, “Our Regeneration by Faith: Repentance.”

Even though we have taught in part how faith possesses Christ, and how through it we enjoy his benefits, this would still remain obscure if we did not add an explanation of the effects we feel. With good reason, the sum of the gospel is held to consist in repentance and forgiveness of sins. Any discussion of faith that omitted these topics would be barren and mutilated and well-nigh useless. Now, both repentance and forgiveness of sins — that is, newness of life and free reconciliation — are conferred on us by Christ, and both are obtained by us through faith. As a consequence, reason and the order of teaching demand that I begin to discuss both at this point. However, our immediate transition will be from faith to repentance. For when this topic is rightly understood it will better appear how man is justified by faith alone, and simple pardon; nevertheless actual holiness of life, so to speak, is not separated from free imputation of righteousness. Now it ought to be a fact beyond controversy that repentance not only constantly follows faith, but is born of faith. For since pardon and forgiveness are offered through the preaching of the gospel in order that the sinner, freed from the tyranny of Satan, the yoke of sin, and the miserable bondage of vices, may cross over into the Kingdom of God, surely no one can embrace the grace of the gospel without betaking himself from the errors of his past life into the right way, and applying his whole effort to the practice of repentance. There are some, however, who suppose that repentance precedes faith, rather than flows from it, or is produced by it as fruit from a tree. Such persons have never known the power of repentance, and are moved to feel this way by an unduly slight argument.[32]

In this statement Calvin makes explicit a number of the important structures or thoughts in his presentation of the way of salvation or the application of redemption. Faith in Christ confers both repentance and forgiveness of sins. Repentance is equated with “newness of life” and “actual holiness of life.” Forgiveness of sins — “the free imputation of righteousness” — is carefully distinguished from newness of life. Calvin explicitly denies that repentance precedes faith, but affirms the opposite. Repentance is the fruit of faith.

The problematic variations

It is true that Calvin elsewhere occasionally makes statements that seem at variance with his teaching here. Specifically, two difficulties may be noted. On the one hand, occasionally he seems to speak of regeneration as producing faith. On the other hand, occasionally he speaks of repentance as preceding faith.

One may see the first difficulty in Calvin’s comments on John 1:13. Calvin’s exact words require quotation:

It may be thought that the Evangelist reverses the natural order by making regeneration to precede faith, whereas, on the contrary, it is an effect of faith, and therefore ought to be placed later. I reply, that both statements perfectly agree. .. the illumination of our minds by the Holy Spirit belongs to our renewal, and thus faith flows from regeneration as from its source; but since it is by the same faith that we receive Christ, who sanctifies us by his Spirit, on that account it is said to be the beginning of our adoption. 

Another solution, still more plain and easy, may be offered; for when the Lord breathes faith into us, he regenerates us by some method that is hidden and unknown to us; but after we have received faith, we perceive, by a lively feeling of conscience, not only the grace of adoption, but also newness of life and the other gifts of the Holy Spirit.[33]

One may note the second difficulty in Calvin’s careful comments on Acts 20:21, where we read:

He doth not, therefore, name repentance in the former place, as if it did wholly go before faith, forasmuch as a part thereof proceedeth from faith, and is an effect thereof; but because the beginning of repentance is a preparation unto faith. I call the displeasing of ourselves the beginning, which doth enforce us, after we be thoroughly touched with the fear of the wrath of God, to seek some remedy.[34]

These two difficulties are really just one. Repentance and regeneration, as we have noted already, designate the same reality for Calvin, only from two distinct viewpoints. Repentance views the matter from the viewpoint of human responsibility and activity. Regeneration views it from the standpoint of divine power and agency.

These variant presentations of the relation of faith to regeneration and repentance may be resolved, however, when several things are recalled.[35] These considerations remove the problems this difficulty raises for the question of Calvin’s view of sola fide. First, Calvin is not really confused. His statements make clear that he is aware of the seeming contradiction involved in his statements and that he thinks it is capable of resolution. Second, the structure of Calvin’s applied soteriology indicates that the Holy Spirit’s work precedes faith. The question only concerns whether and in what sense this work of the Holy Spirit may be called regeneration. Third, and most importantly for my thesis, Calvin maintains (even in the statements made above) the crucial distinction between faith and moral renewal. In other words, even if repentance and regeneration are in some well-qualified sense prior to faith, they are still clearly distinguished from the idea that moral renewal precedes faith. The statements cited make clear that in so far as repentance and regeneration precede faith they do not consist in moral renewal or “newness of life.” Regeneration creates faith in and union with Christ. Newness of life comes in union with Christ. Repentance in so far as it precedes faith is not newness of life (a new lifestyle), but simply displeasure with ourselves and the fear of God’s judgment that makes us seek help. Thus, Calvin maintains a clear distinction between justifying faith and its fruit, evangelical obedience. Calvin’s comments on Psa. 130:4 make this point:

When a man is awakened with a lively sense of the judgment of God, he cannot fail to be humbled with shame and fear. Such self-dissatisfaction would not however suffice, unless at the same time there were added faith, whose office it is to raise up the hearts which were cast down with fear, and to encourage them to pray for forgiveness. David then acted as he ought to have done when, in order to his attaining genuine repentance, he first summons himself before God’s judgment; but to preserve his confidence from falling under the overpowering influence of fear, he presently adds the hope which there was of obtaining pardon.[36]

According to Calvin, the repentance that precedes faith is dissatisfaction, shame, and fear — not newness of life. It is clearly distinguished from the faith that (in the language of the above quotation) must be added in order that forgiveness may be sought and attained. There is no danger, then, that the ambiguity in the order of faith and repentance in Calvin’s thought should lead to a confusion of faith and repentance or moral renewal. Even, then, in Calvin’s “variant” presentation of the order of faith and repentance, they remain distinct. Faith continues to be clearly distinguished from repentance and regeneration.

The implication for the question

Generally, the terms repentance, regeneration, and sanctification describe the process of moral renewal that takes place in the Christian as a result of union with Christ. As we have seen, even where they occasionally do not, the distinction between faith and repentance is maintained. Repentance, when it precedes faith, does not refer to moral renewal, but to a wholly negative view of oneself variously described as displeasure, dissatisfaction, shame, and fear.

This process of moral renewal is understood in Calvin as increasing obedience to and conformity to the law of God.[37] This is the point of the so-called third use of the law that is distinctive of Calvin’s theology. Of course, Calvin sees an inseparable connection between this process of moral renewal defined in terms of conformity to God’s law and justification by faith alone. Calvin, however, by making faith in Christ the gift of the Holy Spirit unto union with Christ posits a plain distinction between faith on the one hand, and repentance, regeneration, and sanctification on the other. Faith leads to union with Christ. Repentance etc. flows out of union with Christ. The connection is clear. The distinction could not be plainer. In this sense too, then, evangelical obedience is not included in faith itself. Or to put the matter more precisely, it is not in its character as obedience (or as producing moral renewal) that faith justifies. Calvin maintains a strict distinction between faith and repentance conceived as moral renewal.

The Application of Calvin’s Applied Soteriology

In applying Calvin’s structure to Shepherd’s distinctive views, I will simply take up in order Shepherd’s various positions presented earlier.

1. Faith to be isolated from obedience

Shepherd’s views are diametrically opposed to Calvin’s on this point. In the interests of sola fide, there is a systematic embodiment in Calvin’s structure of the distinction between justifying faith and evangelical obedience. Even in his variant presentations of the relation of faith to repentance and regeneration this distinction is carefully maintained.

2. Faith to be isolated from regeneration

Shepherd insists on identifying regeneration with the process of sanctification and on making it precede faith. Calvin normally speaks of regeneration as equivalent to the process of sanctification, but, when he speaks this way, he carefully avoids making it precede faith. In this sense regeneration is a result of the union with Christ created in justifying faith. When Calvin elsewhere allows that, in a sense, regeneration precedes faith, he only means that one may speak of the Holy Spirit creating faith as regenerative. When speaking this way, however, he carefully avoids equating regeneration with moral renewal or the process of sanctification. He rather makes it clear that “newness of life” is a result of the union with Christ created by faith. Remember his exact words:

... when the Lord breathes faith into us, he regenerates us by some method that is hidden and unknown to us; but after we have received faith, we perceive, by a lively feeling of conscience, not only the grace of adoption, but also newness of life and the other gifts of the Holy Spirit.[38]

Calvin, thus, when speaking in this sense, distinguishes the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit that creates faith from “newness of life and the other gifts of the Holy Spirit.”

3. Faith to be isolated from repentance

If Shepherd makes regeneration precede faith, he makes repentance coincide with faith. Because he equates repentance with a transformed lifestyle, this means that the works of repentance are a condition of justification. It is just this line of thought that Calvin tries carefully to avoid throughout his entire structure. Faith is carefully distinguished from repentance and is thought of as prior to repentance in the sense of a transformed lifestyle. Thus, repentance is thought of as the fruit of the union with Christ produced by justifying faith. When Calvin elsewhere allows that repentance is somehow a “preparation unto faith,” he is careful to make it clear that this repentance is not a transformed lifestyle and does not consist in good works. In a sense, it is the very opposite. As Calvin says, such repentance is rather “a lively sense of the judgment of God,” “shame and fear,” and “self-dissatisfaction.”[39]

4. Faith to be isolated from works

It is clear that throughout his applied soteriology Calvin maintains a careful distinction between justifying faith and even evangelical works. Justification sola fide does not mean for him simply that we are not justified by works of merit. It means that we are not justified by any works whatever — not even the works of faith.

Commenting on the phrase, “But faith which worketh by love” (Gal. 5:6), he remarks:

When they attempt to refute our doctrine, that we are justified by faith alone, they take this line of argument. If the faith which justifies us be that “which worketh by love,” then faith alone does not justify. I answer, they do not comprehend their own silly talk; still less do they comprehend our statements. It is not our doctrine that the faith which justifies is alone; we maintain that it is invariably accompanied by good works; only we contend that faith alone is sufficient for justification. . . 

We, again, refuse to admit that, in any case, faith can be separated from the Spirit of regeneration; but when the question comes to be in what manner we are justified, we then set aside all works.[40]

Commenting on Rom. 3:27, Calvin remarks likewise that faith is contrary to any works whatever, including evangelical obedience:

This contrast between faith and works ought to be carefully noticed: works are here mentioned without any limitation, even works universally. Then he neither speaks of ceremonies only, nor specifically of any external work, but includes all the merits of works which can possibly be imagined.[41]

Neither as the ground, nor the instrument, nor even the condition of justification do the works of faith function in justification for Calvin. There is here the sharpest contrast between Calvin’s and Shepherd’s views of justification.

Conclusion

We have now reviewed the evidence that John Calvin taught that central to justification sola fide is a crucial distinction between justifying faith and evangelical obedience. We have seen that he embodied this distinction pervasively in his applied soteriology. Norman Shepherd’s views of applied soteriology bring him into direct and substantial conflict with Calvin’s pervasive distinction between justifying faith and evangelical obedience. Shepherd and Calvin pointedly disagree about the relation of regeneration and faith, repentance and faith, and works and faith as the condition of justification. Shepherd does not hold justification sola fide in the sense that Calvin held it. He is in direct and substantial disagreement with Calvin on justification by faith alone.

The confines of this essay do not permit us to consider the relation of Calvin’s views to those of Luther or the later Reformed tradition. Even this essay has, however, presented evidence that it is not Shepherd’s, but Calvin’s distinctive views of the relation of justifying faith to regeneration, sanctification, and repentance that are maintained in the Westminster Confession. If Calvin’s views are taken as representative of the Reformation tradition, and it is reasonable to think that they should be so taken, then Shepherd’s interpretation of the meaning of justification by faith alone in the Reformed tradition must be rejected. This means that Shepherd does not hold justification sola fide in its classic Protestant or Reformed sense.

Another purpose of this essay has been to commend Calvin’s structuring of applied soteriology. It is to be feared that the careful distinctions so vital to justification by faith alone maintained by Calvin in his applied soteriology have been largely lost even among Reformed evangelicals. It is my hope that the importance of these distinctions and the nuances of Calvin’s understanding of the application of redemption will be underscored by this study.

Notes

1. This is shown by the publication date of Daniel Fuller’s Gospel & Law: Contrast or Continuum (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980) and the fact that Fuller’s views had clearly been developing along these lines for some time. E.P. Sanders’ ground-breaking work, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1977) was only published in 1977. Neither Sanders, Dunn, nor Wright are mentioned in the bibliography and indices of Fuller’s Gospel & Law. Daniel Fuller, The Unity of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 256, takes a position regarding inter-testamental Judaism that is out of accord with the views of “the new perspective.” Only a short article by Dunn is mentioned by Fuller in The Unity of the Bible.
2. O. Palmer Robertson, The Current Justification Controversy (Unicoi, TN: The Trinity Foundation, 2003), provides an extensive account of the controversy. The PCA Historical Center: The Archive and Manuscript Repository for the Continuing Presbyterian Church, 12330 Conway Road, St. Louis, MO 63141 [314-469–9077] publishes an extensive collection of documents related to the Shepherd controversy on the internet athttp://www.pcanet.org/history/ documents/shepherd/justification.html.
3. Robertson, Current Justification Controversy, 61–66, records how central this issue was in the failure of the merger of the OPC and PCA.
4. The Auburn Avenue Theology Pros & Cons: Debating the Federal Vision - The Knox Theological Seminary Colloquium on the Federal Vision, ed. by E. Calvin Beisner (Fort Lauderdale, FL: Knox Theological Seminary, 2004), 101, 102, 144, 145, 146, 212, 265, 313, 315, shows that those defending the “new perspective”-influenced “Federal Vision” are also pervasively indebted to Shepherd’s views.
5. Norman Shepherd, “Justification by Faith Alone,” Reformation and Revival Journal 2, no. 2 (Spring, 2002): 76, 78, 81, 85, 87, 88. The assertion that the Westminster Standards do not use the formula “justification by faith alone” is astonishing. Shepherd asks us to believe that its authors distinguished between faith as the alone instrument of justification and justification by faith alone. Of course, they qualify this statement; but that is the point. The assertion that faith is the alone instrument of justification needs to be qualified just as much as the statement that we are justified by faith alone. Shepherd also asks us to believe that the righteousness of Christ being received by faith alone is somehow significantly different than being justified by faith alone. Such contortions only serve to reveal that there is something very un-confessional in Shepherd’s view of justification by faith alone.
6. Shepherd, Ibid., 89.
7. Norman Shepherd, The Call of Grace: How the Covenant Illuminates Salvation and Evangelism (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2000), 104.
8. Shepherd, “Justification by Faith Alone,” 83.
9. The Creeds of Christendom, ed. Philip Schaff, rev. David S. Schaff, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983), 3:630–631; WCF, 14.2.
10. Shepherd, Ibid., 84.
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid., 85.
13. Shepherd, The Call of Grace, 47.
14. Shepherd, “Justification by Faith Alone,” 84–85.
15. Comm. Rom. 3:22 and 3:24. Footnote citations written as Comm. are from Calvin’s Commentaries, 22 vol. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981).
16. Shepherd, The Call of Grace, 50.
17. Ibid.
18. Shepherd, Ibid., 16. Shepherd, “Justification by Faith Alone,” 79, 81, 88, repeatedly cites James 2.
19. Shepherd, “The Grace of Justification” (Unpublished, 1979), 2, argues in some detail against the idea of justification having a “demonstrative sense” in James 2. He opts instead for the view that: ““Justify” is used in a forensic sense as in Paul. James is saying that a man is saved or justified by works and not by faith alone. James expressly relates good works to justification and it is this fact that appears to bring James into conflict with Paul.” This paper is available from the PCA Historical Center.
20. Shepherd, Ibid., 7, remarks later: “Faith is opposed to all doing of the ‘works of the law.’ It is opposed to all doing that is self-affirming and self-congratulatory. It is opposed to all doing that find the cause or ground of acceptance with God in that doing. It is opposed to all merit. But faith is not opposed to doing the will of God. It is consonant with doing the will of God. As Paul says, faith works through love (Gal. 5:6).” Cf., also, for similar statements, pages 5 and 8 of the same document. Shepherd’s language here is ambiguous in terms of the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone. “But faith is not opposed to doing the will of God” is, of course, true—in the sense that faith is inseparable from doing the will of God. It is not true, however, if Shepherd means that faith is indistinguishable from doing the will of God. The power or quality by which faith justifies is not “doing the will of God,” but receiving and resting on Christ. Some opposition in this latter sense between faith and obedience is necessary to the Protestant doctrine.
21. Shepherd, Call of Grace, 60–61. Cf., also Shepherd, “Justification by Faith Alone,” 88.
22. Inst. 3.1.4. Footnote citations written as Inst. are from John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, ed. John T. McNeill. (London: S.C.M. Press, 1961).
23. Inst. 3.1.1; 3.2.1; 3.3.1.
24. Inst. 3.3.1; 3.11.1.
25. Inst. 3.3.1; 3.3.9; 3.3.19; 3.11.1. Note the references cited in his chapter on “Sanctification and Faith” by Victor A. Shepherd, The Nature and Function of Faith in the Theology of John Calvin (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1983), 35–38.
26. Inst. 3.3.8.
27. Inst. 3.11.1.
28. Ibid.
29. Inst. 3.11.4.
30. Inst. 3.11.2–4.
31. Inst. 3.1.4.
32. Inst. 3.3.1. Italics mine. For many more references to the distinction and relation between faith and repentance see the rest of chapter Three (3.3.2–43). Cf. also 3.11.14, where Calvin remarks, “From this it follows that not even the spiritual works come into account when the power of justifying is ascribed to faith.” Inst. 3.3.1 makes repentance the result of faith the equivalent of actual holiness of life. Inst. 3.11.1 makes being sanctified by the Spirit the second benefit received in union with Christ. Inst. 3.3.19 makes forgiveness of sins and repentance the two benefits of union with Christ. Comm. Jn. 1:13 affirms: "It may be thought that the Evangelist reverses the natural order by making regeneration to precede faith, whereas, on the contrary, it is an effect of faith, and therefore ought to be placed later. I reply, that both statements perfectly agree. .. the illumination of our minds by the Holy Spirit belongs to our renewal, and thus faith flows from regeneration as from its source; but since it is by the same faith that we receive Christ, who sanctifies us by his Spirit, on that account it is said to be the beginning of our adoption."
33. Comm. Jn. 1:13.
34. Comm. Acts 20:21.
35. The treatments of Walter E. Stuermann, A Critical Study of Calvin’s Concept of Faith (Ann Arbor, MI: Edwards Brothers, 1952), 199 and Victor A. Shepherd, The Nature and Function of Faith, 35–38 touch on this difficulty and provide helpful discussions of it.
36. Comm. Psa. 130:4. Victor A. Shepherd, The Nature and Function of Faith, 37, also points to Lk. 26:46, Acts 11:18, and Acts 17:31 with regard to this point.
37. Victor A. Shepherd, The Nature and Function of Faith, 156–164 asserts faith’s need of law and that the law reflects God’s intention for the shape of the existence of faith. Cf., Inst. 3.19.2–3; Comm. 2 Pet. 2:19.
38. Comm. Jn. 1:13.
39. Comm. Psa. 130:4. Cf., n. 36 above.
40. Comm. Gal. 5:6. Note how similar this statement is to the later affirmations of the British Calvinists in their Confessions. The Westminster Confession, the Savoy Declaration, and the Second London Confession of Faith all affirm in identical language (at chapter 11, paragraph 2) that “faith thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification; yet it is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love.” This says at least something about the multifaceted debate about the relation of Calvin and the Calvinists.
41. Comm. Rom. 3:27. Shepherd would, of course, respond that, though he allows works of faith as a condition of justification, he also excludes all meritorious works. This is, however, not what Calvin is saying. Calvin is not saying that all meritorious works are excluded. He is saying something rather different — that all works of whatever kind (ceremonial, legal, or evangelical) are excluded as meritorious. In other words, in Calvin’s view any work — even an evangelical work and even faith considered as an evangelical work or moral virtue — is per se meritorious if made a condition of justification. It is, therefore, excluded either as instrument, condition, or ground from justification sola fide. It is faith as faith and not merely faith as a work or producing works that is excluded. Shepherd’s distinction between works of merit and works of faith falls apart for Calvin when applied to justification. Besides the quotations cited here, Calvin, Inst., 3.11.14, remarks, “From this it follows that not even the spiritual works come into account when the power of justifying is ascribed to faith.”